Confinement, at least to humans, does vary per perspective.  Prison is eventually a social and natural habitat after a while, and that's based on the fact that people return deliberately.  I'd like to say that because drug charges are so common, we can pretty much agree beyond a doubt that we value and wish to have drug use and trade in our society, which pretty much makes drugs laws obsolete.  However, that idea makes me wonder: Who might the captor be?  Who is so confined to ignore an unwritten peoples vote of the value to ourselves and each other of a demand for drugs, and it's use by persons who are considered competent?  "420" because Hitler was that bad. 
So the ethics are mind/body/spirit; reasons for captivating; intended outcomes and unintended outcomes, possibly ignored aspects, or aspects seen as worth the disregard; types of captivity and how the morals (imposing in it's degrees and varieties) do affect by each detail every identifiable detail.  If you take any captive, this will be pretty solid.  So, we take the most lovely; the romantic captive.  For simplicity, we might say passive and dominant.  The passive person does not take the specific courses of action to impede the restrictions of their captivity; the eyes don't look away, and the memory of moments following will encourage further attention.  The interaction will very likely include both persons to be dominant or passive according to moments.  This is likely in the interest of both parties.  Therefore, based on that alone, we can say that the specifics would have to be pairs of instances of dominance and passivity.  However, to shoot a tiger with a tranq gun, the motivations to shoot are completely separate from the tigers agreement or disagreement, and it's the fact of the tiger's ability to fall from the chemical that makes this possible.  The tiger will have some ability to consider it's environment upon waking, and that will have been a consideration of the shooter; it can be said to be mostly immoral for imposing upon the tigers ability to freely live as it would, while the entire future is determined beforehand, if only in the few options for what to do with it (as long as it remains with the shooter). 
We may be unique as a species to systematically impose our beliefs on each other.  The systems are already identified; social, per group think, constitution, emotional beliefs, ideas of importance by wealth or achievement or reputation, with the use of language... These overlap.  Some collections of beliefs are volatile, and I've seen a woman jailed for stealing food, so there may be excessive neglect in these areas (because an alternative to sentencing with jail time to stop the same crime in her future would have been mandatory food stamps or a requirement to show proof of adequate food donations which should have been discussed under oath to tell the whole truth of the crime).  It's possible our beliefs that overlap are like many interacting species "in nature", someone could describe the sameness of interactions. 
The really pleasant confinement you describe might very well be our society, with opportunities to ignore areas that require problem solving as there are also ways to critically explore problems that are simply there, and then the problems in math that we create by interest or curiosity, not to mention that of all the things we enjoy as humans we also have ways to judge it and have mastered many things that could be loved by an individual; we've even got empty space to be not in society, but with ourselves.  So, what of suicide, or depression?  What of captives of a sort?  Is there a problem of belief system or excessive imposition, or is it biology and chemicals?  The question is a problem for areas of language in that the four options in two groups have loaded meanings and relative meanings; it's a problem, in general, that those who are suicidal or depressed are confined without the answers to it, etc. etc.  And if there is a confinement, as it could be seen, what is it and where's it from... Might that question be an experience of confusion to a captive animal of a human, like it's an attention of specifics that have programmed or possible "outcomes" based on "intellectual capacity". 
Lab rats (some) glow in the dark, get cancer, live well and are fed to glowing cats... Does the human involvement of those who can manipulate rats affect any other areas of ethical ownership of a living thing (or it's future at all).  Would they not be the authority on a matter of empathy, or objective course of action of our most simple concerns? What implying factors to ownership or course are there to a thing?  Mushrooms were the size of trees, gas byproducts gave us soil, and could we say anything about their captivity to (what, even) for they're clearly smaller than trees, no longer a dominant influence over the outcome of the Earth... And, our human lives and our species future is determined by *identifiable things* like diet and genetics, which is based on the past, and could very well be determined as failed for a lack of attention.  Say we have no bees for cell phones, the popular example; to talk about it says nothing about having no bees and no food... So can we actually infer, with the pretended scenario, that our immediate quality of life is pretty much paramount as a motivator, and for it's quality obscures......? But... No, of course not.  The dinosaurs had the most random end; but we know that we say "dinosaurs are extinct", and that we never say "but so was everything, and we have spines also."  Dinosaurs being large is possibly the motivation for us to attend to the variable attentions separately.  They are big; what of deadly gases, what of eradication of life on Earth, what of another meteor hitting some other 1 in a million red button of destruction.  Use them, manipulate by their existance, movies... And I should've stopped at mushrooms.

How do I can make websites cool as you??? Pesan Anang Ke Ashanty Setelah Tipes